USA v. Mata

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
NORTHERN DIVISION
FILED
20 2023
I'yi /cV A'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:22-CR-10026-CBK
Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
vs. RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER ON
RAUL TOMAS MATA, MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Defendant.
Defendant filed a motion to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement. The
motion came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Mark A. Moreno. Magistrate Moreno issued
a report and recommendation wherein he recommended the motion to suppress be granted in part
to exclude defendant's statements as substantive evidence but denied in part as to the use of such
statements for impeachment if the defendant testifies at trial. Defendant filed objections to the
recommendation that his statements are admissible against him as impeachment evidence. I have
conducted a de novo review ofthe record herein, including the transcript of the suppression
hearing.
The Magistrate found that the defendant was in custody during an interview conducted on
May 1, 2022, by a B.I.A. special agent, defendant was advised of his right to remain silent
pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 430(1966), and defendant repeatedly invoked his right
to remain silent. The Magistrate found that the investigating agent failed to "scrupulously
honor" defendant's request to remain silent and continued to question defendant. Such continued
questioning violated defendant's right to remain silent recognized in Miranda. The Magistrate
determined that all defendant's statements made during the interview should be suppressed and
should be inadmissible in the government's case in chief..
Defendant objects to the determination that his statements made in violation of Miranda
are nonetheless admissible on cross-examination should he testify at trial during his defense.
Defendant's objection is foreclosed by the United States Supreme Court's determination to the
contrary.
Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so.
But that privilege caimot be construed to include the right to commit perjury. Having
voluntarily taken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to speak truthfully and
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 40 Filed 01/20/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

accurately, and the prosecution here did no more than utilize the traditional truth-testing
devices of the adversary process. Had inconsistent statements been made by the accused
to some third person, it could hardly be contended that the conflict could not be laid
before the jury by way of cross-examination and impeachment.
The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perjury by way
of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances. We
hold, therefore, that petitioner's credibility was appropriately impeached by use of his
earlier conflicting statements.
Harris v. New York. 401 U.S. 222, 225-26, 91 S. Ct. 643, 645-46, 28 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1971)
(internal citations omitted). In Harris, the Supreme Court weighed the policy of deterrence of
police illegality by suppression of illegally obtained statements against the strong policy against
countenancing perjury and the policy of using cross-examination to test the truth of statements
prevailed. New Jersev v. Portash, 440 U.S. 450, 458,99 S. Ct. 1292, 1297,59 L. Ed. 2d 501
(1979).
The Supreme Court in New Jersev v. Portash distinguished between the partial
suppression of statements taken in violation of Miranda from the total suppression of statements
taken in violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled incrimination.
"[A] defendant's compelled statements, as opposed to statements taken in violation of Miranda.
may not be put to any testimonial use whatever against him in a criminal trial." New Jersev v.
Portash. 440 U.S. at 459,99 S. Ct. at 1297. The Magistrate determined that defendant's
statements were not coerced and therefore admission of his statements on cross-examination was
not prohibited. Defendant objects to the Magistrate's factual finding in that regard.
The Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from being "compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself by the introduction of involuntary statements at
trial. Chavez v. Martinez. 538 U.S. 760, 766, 123 S. Ct. 1994, 2000, 155 L. Ed. 2d 984 (2003).
In determining whether a statement was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment,the court
must consider whether,judging by the totality of the circumstances, the statement was extracted
by use of physical and or psychological pressure, — that is, coercive activity — that overbore a
defendant's will. United States v. Bordeaux. 400 F.3d 548, 560(8th Cir. 2005). I have reviewed
the record herein and find that the Magistrate did not err in determining that defendant's
statements were voluntarily made and therefore subject to admission as impeachment evidence.
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 40 Filed 01/20/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

Now,therefore,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The report and recommendation. Doc. 36, is adopted.
2. Defendant's objections. Doc. 37, are rejected.
3. Defendant's motion. Doc. 21, to suppress statements is granted in part and denied in
part. Defendant's statements to law enforcement are inadmissible in the government's case in
chief. Defendant's statements are admissible as impeachment if defendant testifies at trial.
DATED this of January, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
SB.KORNMAf
United States District Judge
Case 1:22-cr-10026-CBK Document 40 Filed 01/20/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>